Article: Ayre Acoustics QB-9 Asynchronous USB DAC Review

[tmitchmd]

From Chris’s Asynchronicity article:<br />

<br />

"Asynchronous USB capable DACs are few and far between. Currently Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS are the major manufacturers with asynchronous products on the market. In my opinion the reason for this lack of async DACs is simply because it's very difficult implement this technology. There is a specific skill set required to implement asynchronous USB and it's not common place in high-end audio. Implementing async USB requires a manufacturer to write its own software for the TAS1020 chip and invest thousands of hours on this part of the DAC alone...<br />

Note: I am by no means a leading authority on USB audio and I relied heavily on engineers in the industry while researching this article. Some, but not all, of my sources were Gordon Rankin from Wavelength Audio, Charlie Hansen from Ayre acoustics, and engineers at Data Conversion Systems (dCS). I filter out all marketing terms and bias when analyzing my correspondence with all experts."<br />

<br />

No mention of the E-Mu 0404 until the comments section later:<br />

<br />

"There's no free lunch as I'm sure you know. The EMU DAC does support 24/192 and is only $200, but just because it goes to "11" doesn't mean much. I think there is good reason nobody else is supporting 24/192 via USB. While it's technically possible there are some major compromises. This particular DAC has very high noise related to the oscillators and the USB circuitry. Thus, the jitter is about 15x higher than some of the CASH list products that only support 24/96 via USB.<br />

Nobody I know has developed an asynchronous USB DAC at this level. The EMU 0404 is technically asynchronous via USB, but it's design and implementation are 180 degrees different than Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS. There is a reason the EMU is only $200 even though it's one of the only async USB DACs in the world."<br />

<br />

Two pages of flatulent commentary on this review, yet no one has yet questioned the wave of the hand dismissal of the E-Mu 0404 as unworthy competition for Ayre, dCS, and other rarefied (and Computer Audiophile sponsoring) Asynchronous USB DAC uber priced competitors (God forbid that you might mention that "asio"is a common term for the same damn thing, lest the fool and his money make the connection?).<br />

<br />

Well golly gee, this impoverished unit does not even require an optional several $$$ dollar hardware/software upgrade (if they’re dopey enough the first time might as well keep ‘em sucking at the teat) to decode native hi rez 24/176 and 24/192 music files, not to mention the hi rez tunes on your vintage DVD-A discs (Foobar DVDA decoder). No extra charge for the asio driver either (see new Wyred four Sound USB DAC).<br />

<br />

If your proposed USB DAC purchase cannot decode an asio-excuse me, ASYNCHRONOUS- delivered hi rez music file out of the box, walk, nay run away! I am rocking out to downloaded hi rez files of every stripe (heck Foobar even has a plug in that will convert DSD to hi rez PCM and another for native rate decoding of DVD-A discs); even digital hi rez rips of SACDs.<br />

<br />

Look, I know dCS, Meitner, and others make nice sounding products. But price no object, the humble E-Mu is right there with them and does not require a wealthy freshly killed elderly relative to afford. <br />

<br />

The great thing about computers for the audiophile is that it exposed many of the rotten lies that pervade high end audio.<br />

<br />

Look Chris,<br />

<br />

Can't we reserve this $$$ nonsense for Stereophile and The Absolute Sound? I have no problem with you reviewing $1.5K-$40K DACs and Louis XIV barcoloungers, but would it be so painful to admit (at least way down in the fine print) that a damn fine "Asynchronous" 24/192 USB DAC can be had for under $200 clams? Where is your review of the Musiland Monitor 02, another sub $200 hi rez capable asynchronous USB Dac? BTW, Creative Professional is not a start up. I would venture to guess that their volume of product sales would swamp several-fold "major manufacturers" Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

Wow, where to begin Doctor. Your comments are so full of misinformation that it's just easier to write off your whole post. I'm not sure where you got your information that ASIO is the same thing as Asynchronous but I suggest you find a new source. You also mention rips of SACDs. Again, wow.

[tmitchmd]

Chris,<br />

<br />

Are these not your words?<br />

<br />

"The EMU 0404 is technically asynchronous via USB"<br />

"...the EMU is... one of the only async USB DACs in the world."<br />

<br />

<br />

Perhaps you might consider the words of one of your sponsors:<br />

<br />

"Guys,<br />

<br />

Remember just like any other interface all Async's are not created equal.<br />

<br />

The big payoff is using an ultra low jitter Master clock as the reference clock to output the I2S to the dac/spdif converter.<br />

<br />

This is the real key...<br />

<br />

The Transit does not do this. The EMU does, but has a lot of DCDC converters and power supply issues.<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

Gordon<br />

J. Gordon Rankin"

[tmitchmd]

The Sony PS3 converts dsd to PCM 24/176 over HDMI. The Oppos convert to 24/88.<br />

<br />

Using an HDMI breakout box one then captures the 24/176 PCM converted to SPDIF.<br />

<br />

Press record.<br />

<br />

Voila...<br />

<br />

"Again, wow."

[tmitchmd]

"Wow, where to begin Doctor. Your comments are so full of misinformation that it's just easier to write off your whole post."<br />

<br />

Gee Chris,<br />

<br />

Could you please document at least one or two of the misinformative comments?

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK Doc - I won't play into your entire game here but I will respond. By the way I certainly hope you give more respect to the people you write to in your professional career than you have given me here. Your original post is full of innuendos and statements like you are the king of all knowledge. I'm beginning to wonder if someone has stolen your username and password as I find your comments rather sophomoric. <br />

<br />

<i>"Two pages of flatulent commentary on this review, yet no one has yet questioned the wave of the hand dismissal of the E-Mu 0404 as unworthy competition for Ayre, dCS, and other rarefied (and Computer Audiophile sponsoring) Asynchronous USB DAC uber priced competitors (God forbid that you might mention that "asio"is a common term for the same damn thing, lest the fool and his money make the connection?)."</i><br />

<br />

A. The reason nobody questioned it is because I provided solid engineering reasons why the EMU is inferior.<br />

B. Ayre and dCS are not sponsors of Computer Audiophile. Your comments suggest that I only mention the Async manufacturers because they are sponsors. This goes to show your ignorance or willingness to lie in spite of clear facts.<br />

C. Wavelength and Ayre are far from uber priced. As a highly paid Doctor you are very well aware of this fact. <br />

D. ASIO is not another term for Asynchronous Mode USB.<br />

<br />

<i>"Well golly gee, this impoverished unit does not even require an optional several $$$ dollar hardware/software upgrade (if they’re dopey enough the first time might as well keep ‘em sucking at the teat) to decode native hi rez 24/176 and 24/192 music files, not to mention the hi rez tunes on your vintage DVD-A discs (Foobar DVDA decoder). No extra charge for the asio driver either (see new Wyred four Sound USB DAC)."</i><br />

<br />

You're right, the EMU doesn't require anything extra. Neither does a 1982 Ford Escort. It will travel 70 mph. But so will a Ferrari and the Ferrari will travel 70 mph much better than the Escort. To be clear, I am saying that just because the EMU can handle higher sampling rates doesn't mean anything in terms of sound quality.<br />

<br />

<i>"If your proposed USB DAC purchase cannot decode an asio-excuse me, ASYNCHRONOUS- delivered hi rez music file out of the box, walk, nay run away! I am rocking out to downloaded hi rez files of every stripe (heck Foobar even has a plug in that will convert DSD to hi rez PCM and another for native rate decoding of DVD-A discs); even digital hi rez rips of SACDs."</i><br />

<br />

You mention the ASIO / Async thing again. Where did you ever come up with that information? Converting DSD to higher resolution PCM has nothing to do with any of the DACs mentioned here. It's been done for years. It also has nothing to do with SACD the physical format. DSD and SACD also have nothing to do with DVD-A discs. Again, what are you even talking about?<br />

<br />

Then you suggest that SACDs can be ripped by something less than a several thousand dollar mastering workstation. What's happening with your PS3 example is a simple SACD DSD to PCM conversion. Again, this has been going on for years and is not what I call ripping DSD from an SACD. If you have native DSD or DST images ripped from an SACD that would be another story.<br />

<br />

<i>"Look, I know dCS, Meitner, and others make nice sounding products. But price no object, the humble E-Mu is right there with them and does not require a wealthy freshly killed elderly relative to afford."</i><br />

<br />

I can't argue with what you hear but I can disagree with your inferences of equality. Suggesting the EMU is even close to sounding as accurate or "nice" is absolutely preposterous. When did you make the direct comparison between these DACs? What music was used? What sample rates? What was the rest of the system? What is your reference that you use to judge the sound of equipment?<br />

<br />

<i>"The great thing about computers for the audiophile is that it exposed many of the rotten lies that pervade high end audio."</i><br />

<br />

That's a great thing if it's true. Please elaborate and give everyone a few examples of rotten lies that pervade high end audio. Again, it's a great thing if true.<br />

<br />

<i>"Can't we reserve this $$$ nonsense for Stereophile and The Absolute Sound?"</i><br />

A $900 Proton and a $2,500 Ayre QB-9 are not "$$$ nonsense" whatever than means. <br />

<br />

<br />

<i>"would it be so painful to admit (at least way down in the fine print) that a damn fine "Asynchronous" 24/192 USB DAC can be had for under $200 clams?"</i><br />

<br />

It really seems like you have a vested interested in raising interest in this DAC. And Yes, it would be impossible for this type of admission as it would be a blatant lie on my part.<br />

<br />

<i>"Where is your review of the Musiland Monitor 02, another sub $200 hi rez capable asynchronous USB Dac?"</i><br />

In the same place as my review of 10,000 other components that I've never heard.<br />

<br />

<i>"BTW, Creative Professional is not a start up. I would venture to guess that their volume of product sales would swamp several-fold "major manufacturers" Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS."</i><br />

<br />

I don't get your point. But I do suspect a vested interest on your part.<br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

If you don't like what your reading here at Computer Audiophile you can have a full refund of your purchase price and move on to any other website in the world that you like.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[tmitchmd]

Chris,<br />

<br />

I apologize for the inference that this is some kind of sliming. It is not. But i would suggest that your attacks on me have been a great deal more personal.<br />

<br />

Nobody is claiming the E-Mu 0404 USB's innards cost the same as the dCS. The point is that there have been few computer dacs at any price capable of high rez playback. Even fewer that have done so asynchronously. The E-Mu and a few professional firewire units for the most part. Maybe a couple of others. And no I am not begrudging Ayre or Wavelength their right to a proper livelihood. dCS OTOH has abandoned the professional market for PT Barnum like reasons. What makes the E-Mu different and ultimately better sounding than the ~ 6X more costly Benchmark is asio. I'm glad that others are now getting on board, but you have to demonstrate why one should consider spending 10-12x the cost of the 0404 for a brand new dac that still cannot decode HRx and 24/192 until it has been sent back for a costly upgrade. <br />

<br />

Granted, from a $$$ standpoint, the Ayre, dCS, and Wavelengths are apples to E-Mu's oranges. But from a functional standpoint they are not. Thus when you review one of these $$$ asynchronous Dacs you owe your readers some reasoned and detailed commentary beyond "published jitter measurements" and presumed power supply issues why they should consider spending their hard won $$ on equipment that may in fact have few advantages over much much less expensive professional units. You owe your readers some listening comparison between 24/96 asioed to an E-Mu and 24/96 asynched to an Ayre or Wavelength. And perhaps a reminder that an upgrade of __ dollars will be required before said Dacs will be able to handle the 24/176 and 24/192 sources that the E-Mu decodes with ease right out of the box (well after the asio drivers are installed anyway). My God man, higher sampling rates and longer bit lengths are what achieving high quality digital sound is all about. The rest is mostly sock chips and fancy enclosures.<br />

<br />

If there is a significant distinction between asio (asynchronous input output) over USB and "Asynchronous USB" than clearly I am not appreciating it, nor from his remarks apparently is Gordon Rankin. As my moniker indicates, I am no engineer so please explain it to me.<br />

<br />

You have an entire thread up about ripping SACDs with the conclusion that it can be done only by recording from the analog outputs or digitally in 16/44 from the CD layer. There would be little point in ripping SACDs to DSD as so few components would be able to properly decode the data. No place for that file on the old music streamer. Inexpensively converting dsd digitally to high rez PCM has been a bit of a holy grail for computer audiophiles for many years. The fact that it can now be done easily and $$ painlessly qualifies as significant. Or perhaps you have already described the process here on your website and I missed it. I know many have asked the question. Why don't you steer us to the post where you described the process of obtaining 24/176 files from SACDs without an analog conversion?<br />

<br />

<br />

And I'm sorry but $2500 for a dac is uber in my house. Your Ford Ferrari metaphor is indeed appropriate to those dirty little lies about "high end" audio and video. Take the innards of a Ferrari and drop 'em in a Ford. What do you call that? Or more likely, take the innards of a Ford and drop it into a gorgeous Ferrari body and call it high end. Take an Oppo BDP-83, drop it into an opulent enclosure and you've got a Lexicon or a Theta or god forbid an Ayre? Take a Panasonic plasma display remove the label and add a shiny bevel and sell it for 3-5x the price as a Runco.<br />

<br />

Ayre and dCS may not support the forum directly but their dealers may be another story. As a physician I must disclose any financial conflict of interest before I publish or speak in public. Do Ayre, dCS and the like not provide some perks and favors in exchange for your selection of their product among the 10,000 others competing for your attentions? What % of retail will you pay for your review sample, eh? Is that perhaps at least part of the reason that we should look elsewhere for that review of the Musiland Monitor 02?<br />

<br />

Okay Chris, you got me. I just bought Creative Professional and I am now planning to corner the high end Dac market.<br />

<br />

Just kidding....

[Osoraku Nakamori]

Does anybody know which DAC chip the QB-9 uses? I know the USB streaming is handled by the TI TAS1020B, but which DAC does the actual conversion? Just wondering. I realize that the real magic of the QB-9 is not really which DAC chip is employed, but mostly the superior way USB is handled and the superior analog circuitry post-DAC.

[xjeep]

Hello Chris,<br />

<br />

Since you are to the best of my knowledge the only one to hear all the dacs in your cash list... In your opinion, just how much better to the best of your memory is the more expensive dacs in your list to the Ayre? Is the cost really that much better to justify the cost difference? <br />

<br />

I just recently read a review about the Ayre saying it is the best value in DACs on the market today... I've also been very impreessed with all the reviews ive been ready about the new NAIM DAC...<br />

<br />

I'm looking to buy a new DAC in the next few days, i would love some more advice...<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

<br />

Cam

[xjeep]

The Ayre uses the Texas Intruments DSD1796 a 24bit 192kHz Delra Segma DAC

[barrows]

one other detail re DAC chip, etc. The QB-9 runs a custom oversampling/digital filter on a FPGA chip, this is a fundamental difference between its digital side and the digital of many conventional DACs using TI DAC chips like the 1796. After the USB receiver section, the signal is sent (I2S) to the custom digital filter, and then to the DAC chip. It is important that all signal processing (oversampling and digital filtering) is done in the FPGA with Ayre's custom maths, and the DAC chip only does D to A conversion, with current output. Many/most DACs using the TI chips (1792,1794,1798,1796, etc) will use the oversampling and digital filters built into the DAC chip-the QB-9 does not.<br />

A big part of the sonic performance of the QB-9 comes from the custom digital filter ("MP").<br />

More info on these technical details can be found at Ayre's website.

[seanNY]

If I understand the technology correctly, the asychronous USB mode enables the DAC to ask for more data wheneve the buffer is being drawn down. As long as it does that, there is no sonic consequence to the transport of the data into the buffer. The only thing that matters is that the buffer isn't drawn down or overfilled.<br />

<br />

If that is the case, why would the USB cable matter at all? <br />

<br />

And for that matter, another review I read said that the Ayre sounded much better when the reviewer installed more RAM. Why should any characteristic of the computer matter if the DAC is running everything and just ordering up more bits of data as needed?

[barrows]

these are valid questions, and as far as I know, the answer is: for the most part, no one knows.<br />

Additional questions along these lines are:<br />

1. Why does using an SSD in the computer sound better?<br />

2. Why does using Amarra or Pure Music sound better?<br />

3. Why does paying special attention to computer power supplies sound better?<br />

Asynchronous USB transfer achieves bit perfect data transmission, and very low jitter operation at the DAC chip-these facts are confirmed by measurements (in the case of the QB-9), but still, better USB cables, using Pure Music/Amarra, paying attention to the details of computer and HD power supplies have all been reported to contribute to better sound. It seems clear to me that we still do not know all of details of what is really happening with computer audio, of course the same could be said about analog circuit design, much to the chagrin of many electrical engineers!<br />

We should continue to ask these questions, in hopes that someday answers will be found-in the mean time it is important to also accept the technical performance that is achieved by well sorted Asynchronous USB transfer as implemented in the QB-9.

[xjeep]

Well in the case of SSD the primary reason that makes your computer sound better is because it has no moving parts ie electric motor that generates radio frequency noise...<br />

<br />

amarra, I have no idea, that makes no sense to me what so ever and i still have trouble believing it...<br />

<br />

Power supply I can only feel can have something to do with radio noise as well...